Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 13 April 2016 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C6A12E0BF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ci7k38TMA01Y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD3C12E086 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [122.53.41.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DFEB180158D; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:50:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org> <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com> <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org> <87twj7eon7.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412110839.GA20488@gsp.org> <8760vn82f2.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412124639.GA27223@gsp.org> <570DAA2F.1040007@gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <570E3298.7040405@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:50:48 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <570DAA2F.1040007@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K2MJjz5IVAVimu1adZ6gi_4a8M0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:51:03 -0000

Brian,

On 2016-04-13 10:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Cherry-picking a few points:
> On 13/04/2016 00:46, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> ...
>> And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to get worse
>> for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.
>
> That is indisputable.
>
> On 13/04/2016 00:49, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
>> Let us say that we set aside enough time about half way between two IETF
>> meetings and schedule all the meetings, as requested by wg chairs or
>> people in charge of other meetings, as a long series.
>
> That won't work with 4-monthly meetings as today. It might work with
> 6-monthly meetings.

I'm inclined to agree. It would be, unless we are willing to throw
over board the tradition with 3 f2f meetings per year the same as saying
that remote IETF meetings are not on the agenda.

There are many reasons why we need the f2f meetings, I would not be
willing to give that mode of operation up.

/Loa

>> Let us assume that the wg meetings is on average 1.5 hours, scheduling
>> 100 wg meetings would require 150 hours.
>
> I think that's optimistic. Remote meetings go more slowly due to technology
> glitches and the need for more formal patterns of Q/A. It's still faster than
> email though (see Alia's message).
>
> On 13/04/2016 03:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
>> I believe that there would be a real cost in moving to remote-only meetings.
>> Even putting aside the time zone difficulties, and the reduced effectiveness
>> of in-meeting interaction, there are aspects of face-to-face interaction
>> taht current remote technologies simply do not capture.
>
> Yes. I've been on a one-meeting-per-year model once or twice for personal
> reasons and it is *inferior* to attending every meeting. Some people
> can manage to time shift their lives for a week for remote participation,
> but most people can't; family, day job, and sunshine combine against it.
> The time zone issue is exclusionary. Also, there is nothing like the
> intensity of being on site with everybody.
>
> Not to say that we shouldn't improve even more on what we can do
> with Meetecho. But an important part of being able to make the best
> use of remote participation is *knowing* the people at the other
> end from previous in-person meetings.
>
>> It was very helpful in BA (and at many previous IETF meetings) to be able
>> to find time to talk with a small number of people concerned about an
>> aspect of one working group. I did that over meals, breaks, etc. It
>> sorted out issues far more effectively than email conversations (in several
>> cases, we had tried to sort it out via email. 10 minutes face-to-face
>> clarified what was being missed, and found a good path forward.)
>
> On 13/04/2016 04:00, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> This is all true, but the idea that it can't be replicated online is silly.
>> How did you arrange to have lunch with these people? You went looking
>> for them, rounded them up, and sat down to lunch. You can do that online
>> as well.
>
> You can, but it's a much more deliberate action and you're less
> likely to get serendipity effects. I would probably have been in
> some of those discussions in BA that Joel mentioned, but unfortunately
> I was on the wrong side of the world and fast asleep.
>
> IMHO we need the right blend of in-person and virtual meetings, and
> we'll find that blend by progressive change, not by revolution.
>
>     Brian
>
>
>
>
>